This was a ten-day judge-alone criminal trial where the defendant, D.F., faced 28 counts of physical and sexual assault against his former partner, C.L., alleged to have occurred between 2008 and 2020.

The defendant pleaded not guilty, asserting that the complainant fabricated the allegations in the context of a family law dispute, particularly after learning he had a new partner.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be neither credible nor reliable, citing numerous inconsistencies, contradictions, and the manipulation of text messages to falsely imply admissions from the defendant.

Conversely, the defendant's testimony was found credible and reliable.

The court dismissed all charges, concluding that the Crown had not proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, and explicitly stating belief in the defendant's account.

The accused, Paul Needham, was charged with one count of sexual assault on his former spouse.

The case involved diametrically opposed accounts of a sexual encounter on January 10, 2019, while the parties were co-habiting post-separation.

The Crown argued the complainant said "no" and "don't," while the accused claimed consensual oral sex initiated by the complainant.

The court assessed credibility and reliability under the W.(D.) framework, finding the accused's testimony credible and reliable.

The court concluded that the accused's actions, based on his accepted account, did not constitute sexual assault, as there was communicated consent through gestures and verbal requests, and he stopped when consent was clearly withdrawn.

M.Z., a registered physiotherapist, was charged with sexually assaulting A.S., an office administrator, by allegedly touching her bare breasts during a neck massage.

M.Z. denied the sexual assault, claiming the interactions were mutual and consensual massages.

The court conducted a credibility assessment of both parties, applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework.

The court found M.Z.'s testimony to be consistent and without obvious flaws.

Conversely, A.S.'s testimony contained significant omissions from her initial police statement, particularly regarding prior disclosure to her boyfriend and the instruction to unbutton her shirt, and her claim of needing to "Google" whether nipple touching was wrong strained credulity.

The court concluded that while M.Z.'s conduct was socially inappropriate and reflected an error in judgment, the Crown failed to prove the sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was tried on charges of assault and sexual assault against his then spouse arising from two incidents in May 2019.

The case turned entirely on credibility and the application of the W.(D.) framework in a two-witness trial.

The court found both the complainant and the accused not credible on important points, including admitted falsehoods in an overseas complaint process and the accused's implausible lack of memory about whether intercourse occurred on the relevant dates.

Viewing the evidence as a whole, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted on all charges.

The appellant, R.C., appealed his conviction for two counts of sexual assault and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The appeal raised six grounds of trial judge error and a seventh ground of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, supported by fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors by the trial judge in her credibility assessments or application of legal principles.

The fresh evidence did not establish that trial counsel's performance fell below a reasonable standard or occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

Leave to appeal the sentence was refused as it was not pressed and found not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant G.C. appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual exploitation involving three complainants.

The appeal raised issues regarding the trial judge's application of the rule in R. v. W.(D.), the rejection of the appellant's evidence without sufficient reasoning, and reliance on the absence of a proven motive for fabrication.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge correctly applied the legal principles, including the W.(D.) rule, and provided reasoned explanations for credibility assessments, demonstrating proper deference to the trial judge's findings.

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual interference arising from allegations that he sexually touched his daughter during an overnight visit.

He argued the trial judge conflated credibility and reliability, failed to grapple with inconsistencies, misapprehended material evidence, and improperly relied on medical evidence as corroboration.

The appeal court held the trial judge gave adequate reasons, properly distinguished credibility from reliability, and was not required to address every alleged inconsistency.

Any misstatements were immaterial details, and the medical evidence was used only to anchor timing and support the general reliability of the complainant's account.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed convictions for assault causing bodily harm and assault.

The court dismissed the appeal for assault causing bodily harm, finding sufficient evidence for common unlawful purpose.

However, the appeal against the assault conviction was allowed, and a new trial ordered.

This was due to the trial judge's material misapprehension of evidence regarding the sequence of events in the second confrontation between the appellant and the victim, which improperly precluded consideration of self-defence or consensual fight arguments.

The court emphasized the necessity for trial judges to provide sufficient reasons, reconcile divergent evidence, and avoid misapprehending material facts that impact the air of reality of a defence.

J.C. was charged with sexual assault and voyeurism (Counts 1 & 2) and extortion and sexual assault (Counts 3 & 4).

The court acquitted J.C. on Counts 1 and 2, finding insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant, H.D., was incapable of consenting or that the video was made surreptitiously.

However, the court convicted J.C. on Counts 3 and 4, finding that he extorted sexual favours from H.D. by threatening to post a compromising video online, and that H.D. did not consent to subsequent sexual acts due to duress and power imbalance.

Summary conviction appeal from a sexual assault conviction arising from an employer's staff party.

The appellant argued that the trial judge materially misapprehended evidence concerning the complainant’s intoxication, dancing, evolving account of the assault, scene location, and surrounding circumstances, and also reversed the burden of proof by faulting the defence for calling only certain witnesses.

The appeal court held that the reasons focused on credibility without adequately addressing reliability, contained several non-peripheral misapprehensions of evidence, and improperly commented on witness-calling choices in a manner inconsistent with the Crown’s burden.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial was ordered before a differently constituted summary conviction court.